When politicians speak or even their close supporters speak, we have to consider the possibility of deception. Hence, Khizer Khan little speech at the Democratic National Convention should have raised our suspicions. So when I saw Hillary’s DNC ‘Khan’ Job at That Mr. G Guy’s Blog, I decided to take a looksee. Since that post was interesting, but a bit hard to believe, I looked around.

Khizr Khan Has Written Extensively On Sharia Law (dailycaller.com) suggests Khan has religious motivations most Americans would find disagreeable. Nonetheless, the LBGT communities representatives to the Democratic Party’s national convention probably still cheered for Khan. Suicidal, I guess.

When Khan spoke at the convention, it appears he used the death of his son for his own gain. That’s hardly admirable, and we should shame the news media and the politicians who have attacked Donald Trump. They should have known better.

Post navigation

24 thoughts on “WHO IS KHIZR KHAN?”

Tom – I have been trying let such blind and insensitive partisanship pass and instead try to focus on the positive. However, as a retired line officer in the US Navy, I simply cannot let this one one go unanswered.

Mr. and Mrs. Khan lost their son in combat while he was defending this nation and in the uniformed service. Captain Khan was the brother of every man and woman who now serves or who has ever honorably served this country, and his religious preference is not relevant to that kinship. Captain Khan’s family is therefore our own family, and we will forever weep with them for their loss.

The Khan’s son was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star for heroism because Captain Khan’s actions saved the lives of the soldiers under his command. This family’s sacrifice is beyond anything imaginable to most of us, and we them honored first, last and foremost for their son’s and their patriotism and for their terrible loss. I can only echo the nonpartisan Veterans of Foreign Wars in saying that such indecent criticism of Gold Star families is “out of bounds”.

From Politico:

“Election year or not, the VFW will not tolerate anyone berating a Gold Star family member for exercising his or her right of speech or expression,” VFW leader Brian Duffy said.

“There are certain sacrosanct subjects that no amount of wordsmithing can repair once crossed,” Duffy said in the statement. “Giving one’s life to nation is the greatest sacrifice, followed closely by all Gold Star families, who have a right to make their voices heard.”

Mr. Trump crossed a line of common decency in criticizing this Gold Star family that sinks to a new low in simple compassion and common decency, even for him. It demonstrates that he is simply not fit to lead our military or this country.

It saddens me greatly that you dishonor this family’s unquestioned sacrifice and that you have impugned their patriotism. You are better than this, and it is beneath you.

If I had a son or a daughter die in combat, would that give me a license to kill people?

Khan used his son’s death to validate his accusations against Donald Trump. It doesn’t work that way. The truth of our words must stand or fall based upon their own merit. Nothing more. Nothing less. And you said nothing whatsoever about the truth of what Khan said. So there is no merit in your words because there is nothing to substantiate them.

When Khan entered the political arena, he became a player. Just because of his son’s death, that does not change.

No, Tom. If you had a child killed in combat, that would not give you a license to Kill people. where did you get that idea? Mr. Khan said nothing like that, did he?

Mr. Khan directly and simply pointed out the obvious – that Mr. Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric corrodes the strength of the Republic and lays it open and vulnerable to enemies like ISIL. It is an essentially anti-American ethos that he espouses. Khan’s son’s death does validate the point that one of the most important allies of the Nation in the fight against Middle Eastern extremists using a perverted Islam as a recruiting tool is a robust Muslim-American community that is in the front lines and also acting as interpreters, analysts, advisors, and liaisons with the American-Muslim community.

Islam is an ideology. It is about an idea. Our republic represents an idea. Christianity represents an idea. Nazism represents an idea. Communism represents an idea.

Some ideas are good. Some just don’t work well. Some are very bad.

Trump is against Islamic Terrorism. Islamic Terrorism is an idea. The adherents claim to be Muslim and come Muslim communities.

You guys want to say Islamic Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Why? You don’t say. You just say not all Muslims are terrorists. So?

If someone says Islamic Terrorism and Islam are related, you call him a bigot, that he doesn’t have the expertise to know anything about Islam. And your expertise? Well, it sure is not obvious.

Whether it is Islamic or not, it is safe bet that ISIS is a bad idea and a big problem. It is also stupid to allow possible terrorists and hordes of illegal immigrants into our country. That creates obvious problems.

Since Trump seems have the most reasonable approach for dealing with these issues and others, I plan to vote for him. If that causes you to think me a bigot, so what?

From Khan’s perspective, Trump has stated that, because his religion and his son’s religion, he and his son are bad Americans.

“Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities; women; judges; even his own party leadership.” Are any of these things actually in doubt? No, we know each one to be based on comments Trump has said and then needed to dial back under harsh criticism from even members of his own party.

“You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.” In the context of this remark–referring to the sacrifice of those in Arlington Cemetery who ARE of all faiths–Trump has not made such a sacrifice.

“We cannot solve our problems by building walls, sowing division.” A different way of saying, “A house divided cannot stand.”

So what exactly about Donald Trump was untruthful in his speech? The “charges” brought by these new media types with the integrity and credibility of the Glavit, are insinuations and innuendos. Trump mocked a man who lost his son in defense of this nation, my comrade in arms, and a servant of the nation. Such a thing is never to be the object of ridicule or mockery. Trump makes himself a poor potential commander in chief when he treats the sacrifices of the armed services as so petty that they can be the subject of a twitter war.

Whenever I look into the accusations against Trump, I find they tend to be exaggerated. I did not like at all the way he treated Ted Cruz and Cruz’s wife. I doubt I would personally like Trump. That is beside the point. The alternative is far worse.

Is what Trump has proposed rational? Yes. Has he called upon us to hate Muslims? No. Has he called upon us to hate anybody? No.

Trump has just said we need to put our own interests first. That is in fact our government’s job.

Muslims smear Islam more than anyone else. When people kill others in the name of their god, it says something about their religious beliefs.

When we invite a bunch of people from nations who hate us into our country, we are just asking for trouble. When we cannot screen out the terrorists, that is what we are doing, and that is bound to be divisive.

Charity is a personal matter. If you want to give stuff away, use your own pocketbook, not one that belongs to someone else. Giving away other people’s property is divisive, and that is what our government is doing with our immigration laws.

We have a bunch of businesses and political radicals promoting immigration to an extreme degree. They have made a religion out of it. That is why Trump’s campaign took off.

I’m just going by the transcript of what he said. You also assume there is only one alternative. You will likely give me a speech about how third parties are evil and ruin everything which runs exactly parallel to the narrative published by the two dominant parties….making it a cheap ploy to retain power.

It says something about Islam the same as gun violence says something about gun ownership. Sometimes bad people use things to do bad things. If you want to know whether a thing is bad in itself, you examine the thing, not the people using it. Planned Parenthood has been trying to fight such an examination of abortion for example.

You are making several assumptions here. First, you assume that the bunch of people hate us. Second, you assume we cannot screen out the terrorists. We are not in the same boat as Europe with droves coming over the board unchecked. There are people sitting in refugee camps that are still waiting on applications from two years ago.

How we got on the subject of charity from Khizer Khan, I’ll have no idea. If charity is a personal matter, what right, then, does Pence have in preventing the charities in his state from accepting and taking care of refugees? Wouldn’t that be government overreach or is that merely the government overreach you agree with? Keep government out of everything except those things we want it in seems to be your mantra.

I don’t really care why his campaign took off and I am rather intrigued that you have fallen into lock step so quickly behind him. It shows a compromise of principles that I believed you held so strongly.

I have been trying let such blind and insensitive partisanship pass and instead try to focus on the positive.

You have been trying to let what you call “blind and blind and insensitive partisanship pass”? Really? Such language is referred to a posturing. In fact, all of what you just wrote is posturing. Posturing doesn’t add useful content; it is done for its emotional effect. It is similar to finding someone with a family member who died in combat to mouth accusations of prejudice that so and so says Muslims don’t make good Americans. Yet what matters are whether the words are true, not posturing.

That’s the frustration I have when I debate you. You spent all your time telling me I am not being nice. That too is just posturing.

If we were having a substantive debate, we would be discussing ethical issues. Is what we want to do right or wrong? If we were considering ethical proposals, then we would be looking at whether what we want to do would fix the problem we want to fix or just make things worse. Finally, we would consider alternatives. Is there another way to fix the problem that has fewer ethical concerns or is less costly. Because we are always deadlocked on accusations of bigotry, we don’t get to that part of the debate. The entire country never gets to that part of the debate, and Trump has nothing to do with it. Trump has almost nothing to do with it. Even if Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush were running against H. Clinton, the debate would still be just as full of muckraking.

“When Khan entered the political arena, he became a player. Just because of his son’s death, that does not change.”

Tom – because you incredulously don’t seem to understand the “merit” of my words, let me school you on one the most basic truths of military leadership and service. The death of a brother service member and the sacrifice of his family are not ever, ever a game for us, particularly for any serviceperson who ever has or ever will serve in a combat zone. A Gold Star family already owns the “arena” of democracy because they have purchased it dearly. This just cannot be a petty game for someone who would lead all our military personnel in a time of war.

The Khans’ would have been a five minute story if Mr. Trump had acted with the least modicum of decency. Numerous grieving parents appeared at the Republican convention and voiced support for Trump and heart rendering criticism for Secretary Clinton. Any decent person, much less a person who would lead, simply praises the lost loved one’s service, acknowledges and honors their family’s sacrifice, respectfully accepts the disagreement, and then quickly moves on to other issues rather than getting into a character contest with a Gold Star parent and then trying to somehow equate the sacrifice of their son in combat saving his troops with his own employing of people in the process of amassing his supposedly great wealth. Why would anyone but a “moral pigmy” feel that there is any comparison? Donald Trump appears to be so lacking in simple compassion and so thin skinned that he is incapable of not attacking and continuing to daily attack even the grieving parents of an American hero.

This is not just some minor failing of political correctness. Leadership, particularly military leadership, means demonstrating honor and integrity, and in the face of the enemy, a loyalty to each other that goes above and beyond partisanship, gender, race, ethnicity and religion. Mr. Trump’s petulantly insensitive words and actions continuously demonstrate a narcissism and a seemingly pathological lack of human empathy that makes him unquestionably incapable and unqualified to lead.

Sigh! I use the word “player” so the game strategy is to say I am treating it like a game? That’s posturing and word games too.

Why didn’t Trump ignore Khan? I don’t know. I guess he did not know it is politically correct for the parent of a soldier who died in combat slander a political candidate’s reputation. Did the Clinton campaign know exactly what they were doing? Of course they did. They know all about political correctness. They know it is politically correct for the parent of a soldier who died in combat to slander a political candidate’s reputation.

I can’t speak for the man, but I expect Trump doesn’t treat an assault on his reputation by a speaker at a national political convention like a politically correct game. Khan knew and knows exactly what he is doing. Instead of treating him like a whimpering dog, Trump apparently assumed Khan knew exactly what he was doing. So he pushed back. So what if the news media hypocritically runs around joyfully blaming Trump — telling us it is Trump’s own fault they are stabbing him in the back? So what if the news media also ignores — sweeps under the rug (just like you) — Khan’s connections to the Clinton’s, the Saudis, and his business, specializing in visa programs accused of selling U.S. citizenship?

Khan’s a gold star father. Does he not have the politically correct right to use his son’s death any old way he wants?

You have the nerve to call Trump insensitive? Consider the alternative. Is Hillary Clinton is wonderful because she knows how to properly abandon the people who work for her. Is she wonderful because she can so sweetly ignore the criticisms of the relatives of the people who died because she abandoned them? Is she wonderful because the news media ignores her graft and incompetence and plays up the fact she has the politically correct genitalia?

Gosh! If H. Clinton’s deception had only worked. It was supposed to be that video, not her inexplicable stupidity, but not enough people were dumb enough to believe it. But think how happy we would have been to know it was not her fault. We could joyfully shriek! Hillary is a woman, and she is going to be president! Didn’t work. So now its “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

Tom- Mr. Trump’s inability to avoid berating the Gold Star parents of a decorated fallen American soldier is not because he is too honest to “posture” some simple human decency, it’s because your candidate is a soul dead narcissist who is so thin skinned that he cannot help picking fights with anyone at the slightest feeling of slight. Mr. Trump is even churlishly refusing to endorse the highest ranking elected Republican in the nation, Speaker Paul Ryan, because Ryan (along with other principled Republicans) has had the nerve to try to reel in one after another of the man-baby bully Trump’s self centered tantrums, including this one with the Khans.

I disagree with Senator John McCain on many things, but the fact that he is an American hero who is to be honored for his sacrifice for his country is beyond dispute by anyone who knows the slightest meaning of the simple virtues set forth in the U.S. Military’s “Code of Conduct” for American prisoners of war. When I was in SERE School (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape), McCain’s heroic actions in refusing early release from the hell hole of the Hanoi Hilton was taught as a shining example of actually living the Code of Conduct. McCain still suffers from the injuries of his torture during that captivity, but with his sociopathic insensitivity to what honor and sacrifice actually means, the draft-dodging Mr. Trump dismisses Sen. McCain’s heroism because Trump likes people who don’t get captured, and then, incredulously, Trump plans to instigate the same sort torture policies that we condemn our enemies for using on Sen. McCain.

Trump cannot help himself from having one childish fit after another. He dishonors heroes and Gold Star parents, but the scary thing for your party and the country is not what the megalomaniacal Trump has done, but what insane thing will he do or say next. Trump’s demonstrated lack of simple virtues and common decency is tearing apart the Republican Party just as his being devoid of these basic leadership qualities would tear apart the nation and all our alliances if we were foolish enough to make him leader of the free world. It saddens me that you have chosen to support Trump’s most dishonorable actions and words, and be an apologist for this sad excuse for a human being. I love you and know you are a better person than this.

And if you mean by “posturing” that I was trying to reframe the debate in a more positive way, then yes, I plead guilty, but you had to bring up for discussion the one area of Mr. Trump’s behavior that every American military veteran should be honor-bound to condemn in uncertain terms. The ultimate sacrifice made by the Khan’s through their brave son exemplify what is best in America while Mr. Trump demomstrates what is worst. Trump is a Putinesque would-be tyrant who is not fit to lead this great nation.

Let me be clear. I don’t hate Mr. Trump. I feel sorry for him. I cannot imagine what events must have fractured his personality to the point where he needs to be the way he is, but we still cannot let him treat our heroes and their parents this way. For the sake of everything that is good and virtuous about our nation, we cannot let him become our president.

I think Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have exhibited a pattern of behavior that make them unfit for the job of president. Obama has been poor president, at best. Clinton has done nothing to demonstrate she is qualified. Both have clearly broken their oath of office. Nevertheless, I don’t call either of them soul dead narcissists. That’s above my pay grade.

You have not added anything worthy of comment. You are just telling me how you feel without anything factual. Since how you feel is something only you can change, I think I will break off here.

Trump’s “policy” (actually a succession of varying vaguenesses that have totally lacked policy definition) have been anything but “reasonable”, Tom. They have instead been incendiary, unworkable catch-phrases largely designed to validate hostility to Muslims, both here and abroad. Whether it is his initial “plan” to ban all Muslims from entering, regardless of whether they are US Citizens or not, his later plan to ban Muslims from Syria, Iraq and other Middle Eastern states, or his yet later plan to ban all people from countries “compromised” by terrorism (presumably including allied countries such as France, Germany, UK, and Israel), it’s all balderdash. Its purpose is to attract low-information, fearful voters in the United States. These are not serious, implementable policy approaches to immigration or security. It’s just inflammatory nonsense designed to stir up destructive impulses within the electorate. If it were that alone, it would be objectionable demagoguery, but the real problem with such talk is the degree to which it aids and abets enemies of the United States by encouraging their recruitment propaganda that Muslims are hated and persecuted by western nations.

You tell a commenter above (Novademocrat – the initial comment has disappeared, but I see your response) that he/she says that there is no link between Islam and terrorism. The comment has vanished, but my guess is that the commenter said nothing of the sort. Of course there is a link. One of the tactics that we have to use to defeat ISIL is to break that link and give strength to the vast majority of Muslims here and abroad who are as appalled by violence that invokes Islam as an excuse as we would be by political terrorists who would invoke Chrisitanity to justify violence.

Islam is an idea. Thanks to Multiculturalist bigots, we cannot have an honest discussion about ideas without being called biggoted. That’s the reason for the expression “PC”.

Grow up! Multiculturalism is a fairytale. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists, and so forth do not all believe in the same God. Each of these ideologies is not equally valid. Santa Claus is closer to the truth than Multiculturalism, which is just an especially dumb religious belief.

When D. Trump proposed to ban Muslims, some other Republicans just took his idea and said let’s ban immigration from those nations harboring large numbers of terrorists. Sounds more palatable, but it is the same thing. So that works for me.

Tom – I missed Novademocrat’s comment on multiculturalism (I seem to have some sort of glitch in my system where I can’t see her comments, only your responses), but, again, given your propensity for distortion (either deliberate or through incomprehension) of certain commenters’ submissions (I’ve been a frequent victim of this myself at this site), my guess is that she didn’t offer an encomium to “Multiculturalism”. It seems more likely that you just went off on some sort of batty tangent with that.

To try to pick up and salvage some semblance of grown-up conversation, I am not aware of a religion called “Multiculturalism”. I think the term has become something of a bogey-man term for certain narrow segments of the uninformed population. I doubt that the term denotes anything so coherent as to be an “ideology”, but rather is a label affixed by some to ideas related to American values such as pluralism and the protection of religion from state interference. Perhaps that’s what Novademocrat was referring to when she/he used the term in her missing comment. However, knowing you and your habits, perhaps she didn’t mention “multiculturalism” at all. Whatever be the case about Novademocrat’s post, I would intervene to suggest that those who extol the strength that pluralism has given our country, as distinguished to less open societies, are probably not particularly “bigoted”, particularly beyond the baseline of human foibles that attend us all to some degree or another. I see more “political correctness” coming from our mainstream presidential candidates of both parties than I do from the individuals I encounter day in, day out in my neighborhood, my work, my church, my community. Mr. Trump, for example, has been excruciatingly “politically correct” or “PC” as you abbreviate it, in his many nasty, un-American remarks designed to garner votes from what he perceives to be his political base (why else would one call a California federal district judge from Indiana, a “Mexican”, just to cite one of many, many execrable examples).

To further try to salvage something mature or meaningful from the dialogue, I think I’d agree with you that standard religions could be classified, at least in some loose sense, as “ideologies” (i.e., a system of beliefs), but it probably does a disservice to those of us who are conventionally religious to lump us together with secular ideologies such as Communism or Libertarianism, or any other “-ism”. Perhaps a useful semantic dividing line is to use the term “ideology” for secular belief systems concerning government and social organization, and use “religion” to describe belief systems posited on other-wordly elements, such as belief in a super-natural creator deity, belief in various forms of after-life, or ethics systems believed to be dictated by super-natural, non-human beings.

No Tom, what you are saying about President Obama and Secretary Clinton is just scurrilous opinion not even based on conjecture and devoid of genuine provable facts. What I have said about Trump here is based on what he has actually said and done – facts that unfortunately for all us, are too well known. You refuse to look at those facts and don’t even try to dispute them but instead try to deflect.

Perhaps Trump cannot help it that he is morally handicapped (and the handicapped are another group he can’t help mocking) by a lack of basic virtues, but we still can’t afford to make someone who indisputably does and says these dishonorable and morally repugnant things be our leader.

No Tony, what you are saying about Donald Trump is just scurrilous opinion not even based on conjecture and devoid of genuine provable facts. What I have said about H. Clinton here is based on what she has actually said and done – facts that unfortunately for all us, are too well known. You refuse to look at those facts and don’t even try to dispute them but instead try to deflect.

Perhaps H. Clinton cannot help it that she is morally handicapped (and the handicapped are another group she can’t help turning into a victim group) by a lack of basic virtues, but we still can’t afford to make someone who indisputably does and says these dishonorable and morally repugnant things be our leader. by a lack of basic virtues, but we still can’t afford to make someone who indisputably belongs in jail be our leader.

If you want to change the subject then I don’t blame you. In this regard, Mr. Trump is pretty indefensible. Perhaps you would like to start a new thread to defend Trump’s new plan (well, actually it’s Senator Sander’s old plan) to spend something like a trillion dollars on infrastructure and finance it with new federal bonds. That should be interesting.

Tony, I was quite clear. When you start calling someone “a soul dead narcissist”, that is not debatable. Neither you nor I are fit to judge such things. I could say more, but I am content with what I have said.

Here is an editorial piece from retired General Barry McCaffrey, who retired as a four star and was the most highly decorated serving general, including three Purple Hearts and the Distinguished Service Cross. The nonpartisan General McCaffrey presents the case for why Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president of the United States. Tom, I encourage you and your followers to read this article and take it to heart:

Let’s face it, the prospect of a Trump Presidency is horrible a Hillary one is probably worse. We have the choice of a turd sandwich or diarrhea shake this election and the big question is whether to accept either.

I did not like Trump’s entirely necessarily response to Khan’s speech but Tom brings up many good points. Yes, Trump should have avoided the whole thing but Khan entered the arena and therefore was fair game. And there was plenty to pick apart as Tom said, I notice noe of the commenters here have touched that.

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.